The Russian State’s Use of Irregular Forces and Private Military Groups: From Ivan the Terrible to the Soviet Period Sergey Sukhankin Introduction Russia’s growing employment of non-linear forms of warfare (including private military contractors) has long historical traditions. This paper seeks to discuss the main milestones of historical evolution of Russia’s use of mercenary and irregular forces from Tsarist Russia to the final days of the Soviet Union. Specifically, this paper will explore: Key ideas/motivations that guided the Russian state in employing these groups prior to 1917; The evolution of the Soviet approach toward irregular forces and their use within the scope of (para)military operations; Participation of Soviet “military advisors” in regional conflicts and zones of instability as part of the geopolitical power play against the West (primarily the United States); The phenomenon of “special forces” (Spetsnaz) as a means to achieve specific tasks. The research is built on a broad range of Russian sources and presents a combination of chronological and thematic approaches. Russia’s Use of Irregular Forces in the pre-Soviet Period (1612–1917) 1 As described in the first paper in this series, “War, Business and Ideology: How Russian Private Military Contractors Pursue Moscow’s Interests,” Russia’s use of private military contractors dates all the way back to the Livonian War (1558–1583) and reflects Russia’s traditional weakness in the realm of naval operations.1 During the same period, Cossack ataman (leader) Yermak Timofeyevich, hired by the powerful Stroganov merchant family, undertook a raid against the Muslim quasi-state of the Khanate of Sibir. Conceived as a means to gain economic profit, this expedition, which lasted from 1581 to 1585, would become a crucial milestone in Russian history. In particular, it resulted in a dramatic enhancement of Russian state boundaries and paved the way for Russia’s ultimate conquest and colonization of all of Siberia and the Far East. Another significant episode occurred during the Time of Troubles (1598–1613), when initial heavy reliance on Swedish mercenaries during the war against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth eventually underwent a profound change in strategy. By 1610, the employment of foreign mercenaries would give way to a unique mixture of military contractors and partisan/guerilla fighters (combining ethnic Russians and non-Russian peoples)—the so-called “People’s Militia” (narodnoye opolcheniye)2—which ousted Polish forces from Moscow (1612) and gave rise to the Romanov Dynasty (1613). Subsequently, the process of active inclusion of irregulars in the architecture of the Russian armed forces owed to a combination of two interrelated processes/aspects: 1. Active east- and south-ward expansion of the Russian Empire, which required constant surveillance, control of the territory and protection of the rapidly changing frontier; as well as 2. The necessity to integrate the conquered non-Russian peoples within the architecture of the Russian state with their minimal distraction from traditional activities.3 Thus, at the height of pre-1917 Russia’s power, the backbone of the Imperial irregular forces consisted of the following major groups: Cossacks,4 who, by 1853, comprised of, among others, the Don, Black Sea, Ural, Caucasian, Astrakhan, Danubic, Orenburg, Azov, Siberian, Baikal, Bashkir-Mesher and Buryat hosts. Non-Russian troops (inorodcheskiye voyska)—in particular, the Kalmyk Army, the Dagestani and the Tekin Horse Guards Regiment, the Albanian Army (composed of Greeks and the Arnauts), the Valakh Hussar Regiment, and the Kengerlin Mounted Police. During the First World War (1914–1917),5 perhaps, the most “exotic” project pertaining to the use of irregulars that emerged was the idea to create the Euphrates Cossack Army (composed of Armenians, Assyrians and Yezidis living in the Middle East) as a means to confront the Ottoman Empire and distract its forces from the Caucasian Front.6 That said, in Imperial Russia the above-mentioned forces primarily performed auxiliary functions, which, in addition to providing border security, included military operations against militarily 2 weak forces as well as territorial defense in potentially unstable areas.7 On top of that, Cossacks were extensively used to confront (in today’s parlance) “hybrid threats,” including suppressing protest movements as well as rendering physical protection to the Emperor.8 Furthermore, so- called plastun9 Cossacks (part of the Black Sea and then later the Kuban Cossack Host) were employed as prototypical special operations forces (Spetsnaz) in major military conflicts fought by the Russian Empire between 1842 and 1917. The plastuns operated in small, highly maneuverable groups, capable of penetrating enemy lines with ease.10 At this point, it is also worth referencing General Alexander Roediger, a member of the Imperial Russian State Council and minister of war of the Russian Empire (1905–1909), who noted that “in some areas of military service, irregular troops are handier than regular forces.”11 This idea received new impetus in recent years, following the outbreak of a series of regional conflicts (primarily, the Syrian Civil War and the Ukrainian crisis) and Russia’s growing fear of “hybrid threats” posed (in Russian discourse) by the West, in the form of Western support for “colored revolutions.”12 Pre-1917 Russian history also witnessed one curious episode that might have served as a prototype for the “military advisors” who would later be employed in the Soviet period—the Persian Cossack Brigade. Formed in 1879 (training was conducted by Russian military instructors), reportedly at the request of Nasir-ed-Din Shah, the Brigade “became the most effective military formation within the Persian armed forces” and was extensively utilized (among other tasks) for “suppression of public protests.”13 The Great Transformation: From Irregulars to Spetsnaz (1917–1968) During the Civil War (1917–1922) the territory of the former Russian Empire became an arena of intense armed conflict, with irregular military operations (frequently replacing conventional war) actively employed by all sides. The ways these forces were used differed considerably14: Sub-Type 1: Army-Type Irregular Forces Although initially showing undisputed advantage (due to their highly qualified military specialists and a high level of unit maneuverability on the battlefield), the army-like structure used exclusively by the White Movement ultimately proved to be counter-productive. Their rigid structure, coupled with ineffective patterns of mobilization, eroded the advantages of this model. Sub-Type 2: Guerilla-Style Irregular Forces The so-called “Green Armies”15 (primarily, the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, led by Nestor Makhno), whose operational theater covered huge landmasses, employed tactics utilizing small highly maneuverable groups (5–20 and later 60–70 men), which allowed the Ukrainian forces to conduct rapid raids (up to 100 kilometers per day) in the enemy’s rear. The main drawbacks to these types of forces—aside from a lack of coordination—was their rigid territorial attachment, inadequate economic resources, and lack of a unifying ideology. Sub-Type 3: Irregulars of the New Type 3 The Red Army, which had to maintain control over a vast area with a front stretching for almost 8,000 km, extensively relied on irregulars that were integrated into the structure of its armed forces. This move allowed the Soviet side to deny the opponent valuable human resources (via mass mobilization) and maintain steady control of the territory, while simultaneously operating behind the enemy’s frontlines. The Soviets’ profound strategic success stemmed from their ability to successfully adopt their opponents’ inherent advantages, which they complemented with a fervent ideological component (virtually non-existent among the Greens). From an operational prospective, the Reds—unlike the Whites who futilely used irregular forces in frontal attacks (or operations against the enemy’s flanks)—relied on irregulars already located in the enemy’s rear. Moreover, the role of Soviet authorities, including that of Vladimir Lenin, was essential because they emphasized the necessity to introduce “specialization” among irregular formations. One example was the “bomber school” (shkola podryvnikov), which produced individuals specially trained for subversive actions.16 By merging military and paramilitary functions with strong ideological indoctrination, the Soviet authorities de facto started to implement elements of what today is popularly referred to as “hybrid warfare”; these tactics were then extensively tested during the Soviet-Polish war (1919–1921). The vast bulk of subversive operations on the territory of Poland were carried out by the so-called Illegal Military Organization (Nelegalnaya Voennaia Organizatsiia), created at the end of 1919 (at the initiative of Iosif Unshhtit), and later comprised of 300 groups/cells.17 Its actions turned out to be so successful that its operative principles would comprise the backbone of “active measures” (aktivnyie meropriiatiia) against the Soviet Union’s ideological enemies.18 During 1919–1925, similar groups were also active in Romania, Bulgaria and even Montenegro, with Soviet “advisors” providing the locals with essential knowledge on subversive/terrorist activities.19 At this juncture, an important message was voiced (agreed to by Lenin, yet not feasible from an economic prospective)